Re: [TLS] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

>> Minor issues:
>> 
>> I think convention is to list the documents being updated in the Abstract, but
>> cannot find any formal guidance.
> 
> You’re right that is the convention, but it’s not required.  draft-flanagan-7322bis is attempting to make including updates in the abstract a must, but it’s not been through any kind of LC yet.  There is a sentence there saying that a lot of RFCs are updated and to see the updates header so I think under the 7322 to balance concise and to not include references I’m thinking this is okay.
> 

If another update top the document is needed, then it does not seem hard to comply with the coming convention.

======
>> 
>> If an item is marked as not recommended it does not necessarily mean
>> SB> Do you mean "marked as not recommended" or "not marked as recommended”.
> 
> There are two states for the Recommended column: YES and NO.  I can go either way on whether
> marked as not recommended = NO
> not marked as recommended = NO
> 
> WG - thoughts?

I think the second wording is more clear.

>> =======
>> SB>  I am worried about the semantics of Recommended = no.
>> SB> Presumably there are three states: recommended, not recommended,
>> SB> and silent/don't know/don't care/not yet. Which of these
>> SB> states does Recommended = no represent?
> 
> There are two states and a draft that specifies a value in a registry that has a Recommended column needs to state which it is.  I’m not too concerned because we can change the column value later if it turns out a NO should have been a YES.

It would be more clear is Section 6 said that each parameter will have either "yes" or "no" in the new recommended column.

Russ